Comparison of clinical value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and SPECT renal dynamic imaging of GFR measurement in the evaluation of renal function in renal transplantation

Hong G, Dan L, Yunhe L


Objective: To compare the clinical value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) renal dynamic imaging in the measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in the evaluation of renal function in renal transplantation.

Methods: A total of 70 recipients who underwent renal transplantation in Baogang Hospital of Inner Mongolia from April of 2015 to April of 2018 were selected as research objects. GFR was measured in renal transplant recipients by use of DCE-MRI and SPECT (GFR-MRI and GFR-SPECT respectively), and was compared with creatinine clearance rate (Ccr). The safety of contrast media was evaluated in DCE-MRI detection.

Results: The bias of GFR-MRI against Ccr value was higher than that of GFR-SPECT against Ccr value, with 30% and 50% accuracy of GFR-MRI higher than that of GFR-SPECT, and the difference was statistically significant (p < .05). Pearson correlation analysis showed that GFR-MRI and GFR-SPECT values were positively correlated to Ccr (p < .05), and the correlation coefficient of GFR-MRI and Ccr was higher than that of GFR-SPECT and Ccr, with the difference statistically significant (p < .05). By Bland-Altman analysis, 95% confidence interval of GFR-SPECT was 95.49 ml/(min·1.73 m2), and 95% confidence interval of GFR-MRI was 62.35 ml/(min·1.73m2), which was much narrower. Only 2 cases of patients developed mild rash among 70 cases of patients, and recovered spontaneously without any treatment.

Conclusions: Compared with SPECT, the bias of GFR measured by DCE-MRI against Ccr is much greater. However, DCE-MRI has a higher accuracy, correlation and consistency in comparison with Ccr, and it has a narrower confidence interval. DCE-MRI can more accurately evaluate renal function in renal transplantation by measuring GFR, and it has a high safety.

Full Text:




  • There are currently no refbacks.

Discussion of Clinical Cases  ISSN 2375-8449(Print)  ISSN 2375-8473(Online)

Copyright © Sciedu Press 

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' and ‘’ domains to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', please check your 'spam' or 'junk' folder.